Slashdot Mirror


Mars Rover "Spirit" In Danger

Riding with Robots writes "Just days after announcing that the Mars Phoenix Lander has met its icy demise, NASA reports that a dust storm has left the rover Spirit on the edge of power failure. During one recent Martian day, the robotic geologist's solar array produced only 89 watt hours of energy, the lowest output by either rover in their nearly five years on Mars. Mission managers are taking steps to protect the hardy, battle-worn spacecraft, but the agency describes Spirit's status as 'vulnerable.'"

222 comments

  1. Only 89 watt hours of energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This has required mission managers to shut down the dual graphics cards and switch to the integrated graphics. Really sad.

    1. Re:Only 89 watt hours of energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But don't forget they have to LOG OFF first, and restart all applications.

    2. Re:Only 89 watt hours of energy by iamwhoiamtoday · · Score: 2, Interesting

      actually... if you look at performance and power consumption... it would make sense to run advanced tasks on graphics cards (GPGPUs) then on processors...

    3. Re:Only 89 watt hours of energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should have chosen windows instead.

  2. Those Martians are crafty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Secretly sabotaging all of our probes by use of their weather control system? Genius. I don't know how we'll ever be able to invade.

    1. Re:Those Martians are crafty by Nos. · · Score: 1

      They have buyer's remorse after trading all their land for a single bead.

    2. Re:Those Martians are crafty by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 1

      weather control system

      That is NOTHING compared to the Halliburton Hurricane Machine.

    3. Re:Those Martians are crafty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heap big buyer's remorse

    4. Re:Those Martians are crafty by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      Heh, say what you will about the George W. Bush administration, but the one thing they did right was ensure that our space programs kept runnin'.

    5. Re:Those Martians are crafty by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 1

      but the one thing they did right was ensure that our space programs kept runnin'.

      Aside from tang, foam beds, and some other inventions; why is space exploration 'right'?

      I'm not necessarily opposed to space exploration, but I am beginning to question whether or not that money could be better spent maintaining our first planet (Country/State/etc), rather than looking for another to screw up.

      In short, I'm beginning to think that solving problems for other planets may not be so important, given some of the present problems facing us.

      Unless, of course, the plan is to bounce to Mars and start new. ;)

    6. Re:Those Martians are crafty by Tacticus.v1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nasa got 17.138 Billion dollars in 2007
      The US military got 527.660 Billion dollars
      10 Billion dollars is spent on iraq each month

      Pick a fucking better target to aim at

    7. Re:Those Martians are crafty by Golddess · · Score: 1

      I am beginning to question whether or not that money could be better spent maintaining our first planet

      I'm not opposed to the idea of focusing on fixing the problems we've got here before venturing out into space, but there are far more useless programs with far far far larger budgets that could be trimmed to produce much more currency than scrapping the space program would.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    8. Re:Those Martians are crafty by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 1

      So if it doesn't waste as much, its A-OK then?

    9. Re:Those Martians are crafty by ergean · · Score: 1

      I wounder what is the price of a dream?

      If USA is so pragmatic about everything I guess it doesn't need dreams. It doesn't need science, why ask questions?

      For me a man without dreams is a dead man.

  3. Hrm by Steauengeglase · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can you really call a rover a "spacecraft"? That is kind of like dipping my car in the ocean and call it a boat.

    1. Re:Hrm by Steauengeglase · · Score: 2, Insightful

      -er calling, not call and it is more like saying my car is a boat because it traveled across the ocean on a freighter.

    2. Re:Hrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you really call a rover a "spacecraft"? That is kind of like dipping my car in the ocean and call it a boat.

      Aren't cars a little hard to din the ocean?

    3. Re:Hrm by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Well, that IS the only way you will find out if your car is aquatic or not(bonus points for getting the reference)

    4. Re:Hrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you really call a rover a "spacecraft"?

      Yes, because it's in space. I'm guessing you falsely don't consider Mars to be part of space.

    5. Re:Hrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can. Not least because it had to leave Earth's atmosphere "travel through space" to get to where it is.

    6. Re:Hrm by UNKN · · Score: 0

      No, it wouldn't be called a boat, it's be called a "watercraft" :)

    7. Re:Hrm by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

      At the new conditions, you can call it "SpaceGarbage".

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    8. Re:Hrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it more than 100 km into the sky from the sea level of Earth? Then it's in space.

    9. Re:Hrm by bughunter · · Score: 1

      Amen. And why is it "battle-worn?" Has it been plowing its way through imps, zombies and cacodemons?

      I hope the solar cells are still clear enough to charge up the BFG 9000.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    10. Re:Hrm by ChrisMP1 · · Score: 1

      Then my car is a spacecraft. If Mars is part of space, so is Earth.

      --
      <sig>&nbsp;</sig>
    11. Re:Hrm by Bombula · · Score: 1

      It's on the surface of fucking Mars, dude, if it was a ham sandwich you could call it a spacecraft.

      --
      A-Bomb
    12. Re:Hrm by mbone · · Score: 1

      If your car was on Mars, I would call it a spacecraft too.

    13. Re:Hrm by slater86 · · Score: 1

      To his credit, at least he used a car analogy :-)

      --
      When people ask if I'm an optimist, I say "I hope so". --Bill Bailey
    14. Re:Hrm by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      U R A RETARD. I have seen the mars rover and it DEFINATLY WENT TO TEH MOON!

    15. Re:Hrm by dradler · · Score: 1
      Absolutely, yes, this rover is a spacecraft. For one thing, it has most of the typical subsystems of a spacecraft, including the computer and data storage, deep space communications gear, solar and battery power systems, attitude sensing, scientific instruments including cameras, etc. It is simply a spacecraft that happens to be sitting on a planetary surface, and that has wheels.

      Second, the rover *was* the spacecraft that flew to Mars and landed there. It was not a passenger. The folded up rover inside the aeroshell contained most of the subsystems for the cruise to Mars and entry, descent, and landing. That rover was the heart and brains for the trip to Mars and the landing, and controlled all of those events.

      Outside of the rover on the "cruise stage" was the attitude control rockets and propellant, and the star and Sun trackers for attitude sensing, and some more solar panels. Those burned up in the Martian atmosphere when Spirit entered inside its aeroshell. The rover doesn't need those on the surface, since gravity and the ground provide attitude stability, it uses its cameras and an inertial measurement unit for attitude sensing, and uses the wheels for attitude and translational control.

    16. Re:Hrm by Mister_Stoopid · · Score: 1

      So by the same logic can we call Neil Armstrong a spacecraft?

  4. It's been a good run by danaris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would be very sad to see Spirit run out of power, but honestly, both the rovers have performed so far beyond their original expectations, it's astounding. I seem to recall they were originally meant for something like a two-month mission...four years ago.

    So if we do lose Spirit soon, for my part, I think we can be satisfied with what it's already accomplished.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    1. Re:It's been a good run by ratnerstar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Spirit has definitely done well. Still, it's sad to see the thing die right before they release a major motion picture about it. The timing has a real Obama's-grandmother vibe, you know?

      --
      Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
    2. Re:It's been a good run by CMF+Risk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Think next time they'll add a cleaning brush attachment for the arm?

    3. Re:It's been a good run by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Informative

      Both rovers were designed for a 90 Mars day (sol) mission. The difference between Earth days and Mars days is that sols are 24.6 hours long. Opportunity is on Sol 1710 or so and Spirit is on Sol 1730. Both rovers have lasted almost 20 times longer than originally designed.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:It's been a good run by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2, Informative

      The timing has a real Obama's-grandmother vibe, you know?

      Did Obama's grandmother have wheels? If so, they'd have called her a wagon.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    5. Re:It's been a good run by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did Obama's grandmother have wheels? If so, they'd have called her a wagon.

      Well they did call her an ambulance.

    6. Re:It's been a good run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama's-grandmother vibe

      I don't want to think or know about any grandmother's vibe
      /shudder

    7. Re:It's been a good run by Idiomatick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Adds an ending for the movie?

    8. Re:It's been a good run by SnoopJeDi · · Score: 1

      While I agree...

      Sometimes, the difference between good work and great work is satisfaction or lack thereof.

      I imagine the guys at NASA haven't been thinking "well gosh, we sure got lucky with it lasting that long." It's probably something along the lines of "OK, but how much further could we go?"

    9. Re:It's been a good run by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 1

      Be careful! Saying "Mission Accomplished" just means they'll change the mission parameters on you!

    10. Re:It's been a good run by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It would be very sad to see Spirit run out of power, but honestly, both the rovers have performed so far beyond their original expectations, it's astounding

      Here's the things one or both rovers have survived so far:

      * Full flash memory
      * Non-rotating wheel
      * Dusty solar panels
      * Stuck in dust dunes
      * Two winters (very cold)
      * Going down and up steep crater slopes
      * A global dust-storm that put power at the edge (about a year ago)
      * Broken joint motor
      * Power leak

      That's nine. If they follow feline conventions, then number 10 will be it.
           

    11. Re:It's been a good run by steelfood · · Score: 1

      I thought they called her toot.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    12. Re:It's been a good run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck you looser

    13. Re:It's been a good run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the funniest thing I've seen all week. thank you.

    14. Re:It's been a good run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not trolling, but NASA is an expert at setting expectations low, then milking things for all they're worth when they keep working 'beyond expectations'.

      So, good job, but enough of the 'will only last for 2 months' bullshit already.

    15. Re:It's been a good run by spun · · Score: 5, Funny

      fuck you looser

      Tighter is better.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    16. Re:It's been a good run by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Even if it does run out of power, couldn't it become operative again, once the dust is removed by a storm and enough sunlight reaches the solar cells?

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    17. Re:It's been a good run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think next time they'll add a cleaning brush attachment for the arm?

      Nah, just a number of semi-open ports all over the system that can inject compressed air on an issued area.

    18. Re:It's been a good run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's -1 Bad Taste when you need it?

    19. Re:It's been a good run by Bombula · · Score: 1

      They have performed incredibly. And for the next ones, I recommend one simple upgrade: ostrich-feather dusters for the solar panels.

      Seriously. Lack of a dusting mechanism was a pretty egregious oversight in my opinion. This is not the first time power loss from dust has been a threat to the Mars probes.

      --
      A-Bomb
    20. Re:It's been a good run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's -1 Bad Taste when you need it?

      Hey, it's not like he wrote hearse instead of ambulance.

    21. Re:It's been a good run by nomel · · Score: 1

      Last time I said this...the comment was marked as flaimbait...but...why couldn't they have included something to keep the solar panels clean? Something like a felt windshield wiper? Small motor to vibrate the panels? Can of Dust-B'Gone?

      I don't know...seems silly that a layer of dust...on a planet consisting almost entirely of rock and dust...wipes out the operation of a whatever million dollar rover.

    22. Re:It's been a good run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually thats not a bad idea. but you need to clean up the whole solar panel once in a while. so kind of wiper similar to cars would be a great idea.

    23. Re:It's been a good run by bh_doc · · Score: 1

      Standard feline conventions entail 9 lives and thus 9 causes of death. At number 10, that rover has already surpassed, much to the chagrin of the world's cat population.

    24. Re:It's been a good run by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      Seriously. Lack of a dusting mechanism was a pretty egregious oversight in my opinion. This is not the first time power loss from dust has been a threat to the Mars probes.

      That always comes up a number of times in each /. thread on the rovers. That very fact suggests that the idea is obvious, so we can safely assume that the design team have considered it, and rejected it.

    25. Re:It's been a good run by Bombula · · Score: 1

      Safely assume? You mean like we can safely assume metric-to-imperial units conversions will be done properly?

      --
      A-Bomb
    26. Re:It's been a good run by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      Safely assume? You mean like we can safely assume metric-to-imperial units conversions will be done properly?

      Yes, safely assume! These two things are not at all comparable. Designing a reliable power supply is a core task for a mission like the rover. Ensuring that two teams use the same units is boring bureaucracy. (Which still doesn't excuse the error, of course, because both are essential for a viable mission).

      Apart from that, the design team has explained why they didn't use active means to clean the panels. Just Google for it, or follow the pointers given in other messages.

    27. Re:It's been a good run by Zxern · · Score: 1

      True but if its is indeed looser after the fucking then it must have been a real good fucking.

  5. Not a problem by wicka · · Score: 2, Funny

    Spirit and Opportunity simply cannot be broken. I wouldn't worry about it.

  6. Winter? by chebucto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't this just an effect of reduced sunlight during winter? Or is Spirit near the equator / other hemisphere? I know the Phoenix shutdown is at least partly due to seasonal changes

    From the Press Release:

    "NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander has ceased communications
    after operating for more than five months. As anticipated, seasonal
    decline in sunshine at the robot's arctic landing site is not
    providing enough sunlight for the solar arrays to collect the power
    necessary to charge batteries that operate the lander's instruments."

    --
    The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
    1. Re:Winter? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or is Spirit near the equator / other hemisphere? I know the Phoenix shutdown is at least partly due to seasonal changes

      Much closer to equator with a combination of winter (expected), dust storm (happens) and wear (by now) ganging up on it but it's in a "survivable" range. Phoenix was sent to the arctic region and never expected to survive winter AFAIK.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Winter? by ScottMaxwell · · Score: 4, Informative

      Isn't this just an effect of reduced sunlight during winter? Or is Spirit near the equator / other hemisphere? I know the Phoenix shutdown is at least partly due to seasonal changes

      Time of year plays into it, certainly; this would be less worrisome at the height of summer. But it's not quite the dead of winter, either (solstice was something like 150 sols ago), so it could be worse.

      Spirit is a little farther from the equator than her twin sister, Opportunity, so winters hit her somewhat harder than they hit Opportunity anyway. (Phoenix is at something like 60 degrees N latitude -- much farther than either rover.) On top of that, she was pretty well dust-covered already, thanks to a previous dust storm and the regular old ongoing dust-deposition process -- dust was blocking about 70% of the light hitting her solar arrays before this storm hit.

      It's possible for this to turn out to be good news. Dust storms are caused by (and, in a classic feedback loop, cause) high winds, so it's possible that the winds will actually clean Spirit off and she'll end up better than she was before. Keep your fingers crossed.

      --

      ``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
    3. Re:Winter? by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the solar panels get enoug sunlight, does anyone know if it's possible the rovers will "reboot?"

    4. Re:Winter? by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's what never made sense to me. Seems like all it would take is a low voltage cutoff circuit that shuts off power to everything as long as the voltage is below a threshold voltage, and then when the power comes back on, it would boot back up. In fact, most modern battery technologies require such safety measures to prevent the battery charge from getting so low that the batteries won't take a charge (or the cells reverse polarity like NiCd batteries have a habit of doing). I guess there's still the issue of whether the batteries will fail to operate if they get too cold....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:Winter? by Temkin · · Score: 1

      The problem is, they need to keep themselves warm. Once the internal heaters are powered off, the batteries and electronics freeze up. It's cold enough on Mars that the differential expansion rates of the chip dies and the substrates they're mounted on will crack the chips. Once that happens, they're done.

    6. Re:Winter? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Informative

      I guess there's still the issue of whether the batteries will fail to operate if they get too cold....

      Yes, that's exactly the problem, and not just for the batteries. The rovers and landers need power just to heat themselves so that their components don't get damaged by the cold. In TFA they even say they've already started sacrificing parts of Spirit to conserve power:

      "Mission controllers are commanding Spirit to turn off some heaters, including one that protects a science instrument, the miniature thermal emission spectrometer, and take other measures to reduce energy consumption."

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:Winter? by speroni · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Both of the rovers are near the equator. Its just a build up of dust.

      The phoenix lander was near the north pole. It was there checking for ice. The phoenix lander being in the colder region will actually be so cold it will have carbon dioxide freezing onto it. Its unlikely to wake back up in the spring...but possible.

      The cool thing with the phoenix lander is it DID find ice and even saw snow.

      --
      Eschew Obfuscation
    8. Re:Winter? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Depends on how it is designed. Ideally, you'd put the most thermally sensitive parts (glass lenses and their mounts, etc.) in the core of the unit and/or design them to be able to be retracted into a central chamber. That way, you can keep those parts warm while letting everything else just freeze and thaw. That said, I can't imagine trying to design anything to handle temperatures as cold as we're talking about, so that might not be practical.... Perhaps a variable duty cycle circuit could be added to allow them to dial down the amount of power used by the resistance heaters to be just enough to keep temperatures out of the red (blue?) zone. That way, perhaps they could all manage to run off the solar panels directly even during the low-power periods. They may already be doing that, though. No idea.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    9. Re:Winter? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Of course you can try to compensate, but ultimately, if the rover can't produce enough power it's going to freeze and break. There isn't enough "everything else" that isn't susceptible to cold to make a working rover.

      I would assume that they chose to turn off the heater for the spectrometer for a reason. Maybe because they believed it could best handle the cold, or because of the options it was considered the most expendable, or some amount of both. Either way, I wouldn't be surprised should Spirit survives the storm that the spectrometer doesn't.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  7. Oh Great. by Corpuscavernosa · · Score: 0, Troll

    Now we're going to be hearing from the environmentalists about all this littering we're doing on another planet. I hear there is an organization forming called "Redpeace".

    --
    We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
  8. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Perhaps they should have included a 'solar cell wipper assembly' (Patent Pending) to wipe the dust off???

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward by andawyr · · Score: 3, Informative

      This was thought about, and discarded. While on the surface it seems like a good idea, in actuality it's incredibly difficult to implement, since the dust on Mar's is so 'sticky' - from what I've read elsewhere, the electrostatic charge of the dust on Mars is very high, and any attempt to scrape it off the solar panels would just move it around, not really remove it.

      Besides, with a two month life expectancy, I think it was determined that they wouldn't need to remove any dust from the solar panels since the rovers would have long since died...

    2. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'solar cell wipper assembly' (Patent Pending)

      Shampoo was here.

    3. Re:Anonymous Coward by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative

      NASA probably thought of that, but the issue is how practical any wiper system would be. Unlike automobile wipers, there's no air or water supply to remove the dust. Adding a system to compress air would have added unacceptable weight to the rover and every little bit counts (even if would work reliably under Mars conditions). A water system would have been out of the question. A waterless/airless system then depends on the material you would use. Such a material would have be softer than the panels or they would damage them; however, a softer material (rubber, polypropylene, polyethylene) probably would not survive the extreme conditions of Mars.

      And that's just the survivability aspects. Now factoring the usability aspects: Some sort of arm would have to be long enough to reach all the panels. None of the rovers arms can extend that far so they would have to have been modified. This might add weight and complexity.

      Probably the biggest reason why NASA didn't put one in was the rovers were designed for 90 sol missions. Having them last 5 years is a bonus. Along the way, the Rover team has dealt with the problems that have come with extending the mission beyond the original parameters: wheels no longer work, tools no longer function, dust storms limit power usage, etc. This is one issue that they knew would eventually cause the rovers to cease functioning after a few years.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Anonymous Coward by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Actually, NASA scientist were (positively) surprised when they found out that solar panels can be cleaned by "dust devils" that happen with a certain frequency in Mars.

      This has happened at least one time to the rovers.

      So, it's just a matter of waiting, if Spirit runs out of power, no big deal, it will stop working, and then if it gets cleaned, it will come back again.

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    5. Re:Anonymous Coward by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Informative

      So, it's just a matter of waiting, if Spirit runs out of power, no big deal, it will stop working, and then if it gets cleaned, it will come back again.

      If the batteries are completely drained, Spirit will probably never run again. Both rovers need a certain amount of power to run their heaters. The heaters keep the sensitive electronics from freezing. The loss of power means that the loss of the electronics. During the previous dust storm, the rovers were put into power save mode to outlast the storms. It worked last time but this time they may not survive.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:Anonymous Coward by timster · · Score: 1

      If Spirit loses power for too long and can't run its warmers, fragile components like the batteries will fail permanently due to cold.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    7. Re:Anonymous Coward by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Pardon my ignorance, but I couldn't help but notice the horizontal positioning of the panels. Is there a reason (such as angle of the sun) why there weren't at least some panels positioned at a sloping angle to allow dust to slide off? Or is the dust too sticky for it to make a difference?

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    8. Re:Anonymous Coward by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      I think once the rovers can't run their internal heaters various vital parts will freeze and they will die for good.

    9. Re:Anonymous Coward by mbone · · Score: 1

      Probably the biggest reason why NASA didn't put one in was the rovers were designed for 90 sol missions. Having them last 5 years is a bonus

      Yes, people don't tend to realize the cost and redundancy required to design a mission to last for years on another planet. Basically every such mission is designed for 90 days or less and you hope to get a lot more.

    10. Re:Anonymous Coward by 605dave · · Score: 1

      What I wonder is why not use a blower? I understand why wipers are a good idea. But since the dust can obviously be cleared by wind, why not just use a fan to create the wind?

      Given my complete lack of any engineering knowledge, I may be missing something. But if I can get a solar power fan in my souvenir Six Flag hat, couldn't the next rover have a something similar?

      --
      Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
    11. Re:Anonymous Coward by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Besides, with a two month life expectancy, I think it was determined that they wouldn't need to remove any dust from the solar panels since the rovers would have long since died...

      Well, if I remember correctly, it was dust accumulation itself that was supposed to limit the life span to 90 days, not failure of any component. They didn't know that the Martian wind would do a decent job of cleaning the panels by itself, so they determined that was how long until the rover couldn't power itself any more.

      This is interesting because it means that even when dust accumulation was considered the major survivability issue for the rovers, they still didn't find a wiper to be a practical solution. Then it turned out that they didn't need wipers at all to extend the mission well past the original 90 days.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:Anonymous Coward by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      thin plastic that can be pulled off like motorcycle racers use would have worked.

      Problem is it gives you reduced light transmission for the start.

      And when do you flip off the last one? It was made to run for 90 days, they would have exausted the cleaners years ago.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:Anonymous Coward by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Having the panels horizontal probably generates the maximum solar conversion of any position. If some panels were tilted, they would not always generate the maximum depending on where the Sun was positioned. That is unless the panels could change positions. That would have make the rovers a lot more complicated and they were already pretty complicated. Also having them at an angle would not help. The dust is very clingy due to electrostatic forces. At this point, NASA is probably hoping for dust devils for remove the dust.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    14. Re:Anonymous Coward by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      thin plastic that can be pulled off like motorcycle racers use would have worked.

      Also any adhesive system would have to survive the long trip in space and the extreme cold of Mars. Currently the rovers need heaters during night to ensure the electronics survive. I don't think any adhesives would last.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    15. Re:Anonymous Coward by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Why not implement something that could perhaps dissipate the electrostatic charge between the dust and solar panel?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    16. Re:Anonymous Coward by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      There are two issues:
      1. The dust is super clingy due to static. So a blower would have to be powerful. Equipping a powerful blower would mean sacrificing other things due to weight and space limitation and may not be practical.
      2. Things that work here on Earth in temperate conditions may not work on Mars. Mars has incredible temperature swings: extremely cold at -190 Farenheit and up to 77 Farenheit in the same day. Most blowers/fans here on earth could not survive such conditions due to their moving parts with no repairs possible. In your example, your solar powered hat fan isn't expected to last years. If it breaks, it breaks.
      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    17. Re:Anonymous Coward by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Like what? Any solution proposed would have been expensive and complicated and may have sacrificed space/weight for scientific equipment. Besides that, the original NASA estimate was that this problem would cause the death of the rovers eventually, but this death, under the worst conditions, would be beyond the original 90 sol mission plan so there was no point putting one in.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    18. Re:Anonymous Coward by speroni · · Score: 1

      If the dust is electrostatic, why not set up the same polarity for the solar panels, no moving parts required.

      --
      Eschew Obfuscation
    19. Re:Anonymous Coward by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      no adhesive. they are thin plastic sandwiched and held in place with a clip.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    20. Re:Anonymous Coward by ystar · · Score: 1

      The dust is not uniformly charged to one polarity or another. There has been very successful research in low power transparent electrodynamic screens that will remove all the deposited dust, however:

      See Here

      If future missions utilize solar panels, this technology will hopefully be implemented.

    21. Re:Anonymous Coward by escay · · Score: 1

      Probably the biggest reason why NASA didn't put one in was the rovers were designed for 90 sol missions.

      How did they know the dust accumulated within 90 sol days (or less) wouldn't be enough to completely cover the panels? There was no prior evidence to this - so wouldn't it have been fail-safe to have some kind of a dusting mechanism anyway?

      It's hard for anyone (even NASA) to think of everthing, and it's usually the small things that fall through the cracks. So here I propose a revolutionary way of cleaning dust off the panels (no wipers needed):

      Please see the schematic for a better understanding of the mechanism described herein.

      1. A transparent film covers the panels, without hampering their photo-voltaic function.
      2. Once ground control decides there's enough dust to be cleaned (could be 90 days or 5 years), they start up the film roll motor that starts pulling in the dusty film in and rolling fresh film out over the panels.
      3. The scrapers at the bottom clean the dusty film to their maximum extent, providing the option of recycling the film for repeated uses (reuse=>smaller rolls=>lesser payload).
      4. Since (now that we know) the motor doesn't have to be used frequently, this system is not a power drain. It also provides a guaranteed solar life in an atmosphere as dusty as the Mars'. The parts involved may only weigh in at a percentage of the total weight that can be justified by their obvious importance.

      This idea invented by Shampoo. I have been repeatedly trying to contact NASA and Dr. Squyres but they refuse to take my calls.

    22. Re:Anonymous Coward by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Hmm, maybe a cheap ass ESD monitor like what's used at laptop repair workbenches? Just ground out all the static to the planet and get the dust off since the charge is gone? of course, it's only about a pound and a half, that adds up in fuel expenses.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    23. Re:Anonymous Coward by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      How did they know the dust accumulated within 90 sol days (or less) wouldn't be enough to completely cover the panels? There was no prior evidence to this - so wouldn't it have been fail-safe to have some kind of a dusting mechanism anyway?

      The rovers aren't the first landers sent to Mars so yes they did have prior evidence.

      It's hard for anyone (even NASA) to think of everthing, and it's usually the small things that fall through the cracks. So here I propose a revolutionary way of cleaning dust off the panels (no wipers needed):

      Or most likely they did think of everything and simply know more about the subject than some untrained, unread arm chair engineer on Slashdot who couldn't do even a fraction of their job if his life depended on it. Likely said arm chair engineer has serious ego issues and is trying to make himself feel better by "out thinking" those NASA scientists without realizing he's just making himself look like an even larger idiot to everyone else. That's not even getting into the whole "coward" issue of posting such things on Slashdot instead of places where people actually knowledgeable about the issue post (since that'd cause said arm chair idiot to get ripped to shreds).

      A transparent film covers the panels, without hampering their photo-voltaic function.

      Any film would likely hamper their function to some degree. The ability of any film that does not it unlikely to survive the temperature swings, space travel and abrasion it'd experience. Then there are the likely static issues introduced by such a film itself or during attempts to peel of such a film.

      Once ground control decides there's enough dust to be cleaned (could be 90 days or 5 years), they start up the film roll motor that starts pulling in the dusty film in and rolling fresh film out over the panels.

      They now need to add in motors, rollers and so on that can survive temperature swings, space travel and general wear. Most likely the film will tear, get statically clung to the panels, cover a large portion of the rover's panels and prevent dust from being removed at all (by creating valleys for it to gather in). Congratulations you just made the rovers last 30 days instead of 5 years.

      Then there is the issues of having to redesign the panels to allow such a system, redesigning the system for collapsing the panels in flight, etc, etc.

      The scrapers at the bottom clean the dusty film to their maximum extent, providing the option of recycling the film for repeated uses (reuse=>smaller rolls=>lesser payload).

      What part of "electrostatically clingy" do you not understand in why they can't use wipers?

      Since (now that we know) the motor doesn't have to be used frequently, this system is not a power drain.

      The temperature swings require heating of most components thus any component induces a power drain no matter how often it's used.

    24. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I was thinking about this, maybe some sort of transparent plastic sheet can be used.

      The plastic sheet would come from a roll on one side of the panel stretching to another (empty) roll on the other side.
      Once the plastic sheet gets dirty, just roll it into the empty roller and you get clean plastic over the solar panel.

      Of course this is not a permanent solution, but at least it will extend the usable life of the rovers.

  9. As long as the self destruct still works by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Funny

    We can't allow it to fall into the hands of the damn Sandpeople.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:As long as the self destruct still works by sacker12345 · · Score: 1

      Im telling your there is sand gnomes.

  10. Oh Noes by gregbot9000 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Looks like any future rovers should come equipped with windshield wipers.

    1. Re:Oh Noes by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Looks like any future rovers should come equipped with windshield wipers.

      But that's untested technology. I'd instead suggest Whirlwind-in-a-Can. ACME.com carries it.
             

    2. Re:Oh Noes by Fumus · · Score: 1

      You might have a neat idea there.
      How about if they equip the panels with fans? That'd probably create a few other problems, but creating a small dust-cleaning whirlwind could be pretty useful.

    3. Re:Oh Noes by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      WTF! Redundant? Seriously? IF windshield wipers would be a redundant system then why is the rover in such a bad state now? Maybe you should have considered the idea instead of worrying about redundancy. Obviously the moderators on /. take minimalist engineering to far.

  11. benefits of a dust storm by sdemjanenko · · Score: 1

    Well I for one hope the rovers survive, Cornell would certainly be sad if either of them dies. As for the dust storms, there have been previous dust storms which have actually cleared off the solar panels which then allowed the rovers to produce more power. So if Spirit survives, it might be better for it.

  12. Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by sexconker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Viking 1 - orbiter + lander - dead and dead (fuel leak, battery)
    Viking 2 - orbiter + lander - dead and dead (out of gas, bad software update)

    Pathfinder - lander - lost contact in 12 weeks.
    Sojourner - rover - lost contact in 12 weeks.

    Spirit - rover - critically low power, busted wheel
    Opportunity - rover - still roving strong

    Phoenix - rover - dead, but we're still listening

    1. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Phoenix is not a rover.

    2. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 1

      Phoenix - rover - dead, but we're still listening

      I hear a movie plot! I'm already camping out for tickets.

      --
      Disclaimer: I am not god.
      We may not be created equal
      But we can be treated equal.
    3. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by gregbot9000 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hmm... the only constant I see there is that the equipment with names that are based on motivational posters are still going.

      I propose the next landers be named:
      Success
      Achievement
      Teamwork
      StopShrink

    4. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by confused+one · · Score: 1

      You're taking a NASA centric perspective there; and, even still, you're missing a whole bunch of orbiters...

    5. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it is a lander.

      OP forgot to mention Beagle II, which was lost before reaching Mars.

      Also forgot to mention the Mars Climate Orbiter (metric screwup) and the Mars Polar Lander, which was lost during landing.

    6. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by naz404 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ah, Rover Phoenix... such a loss at such a young age...

    7. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Beagle 2 - lander - LOC during landing, dead

      Mars Climate Orbiter - Orbiter - confused pounds and newtons, lost during aerobraking for Mars orbital insertion.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    8. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There's also the Mars Global Surveyor (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/), which died (probably of battery failure) after 4x longer life than expected.

    9. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Your bare listing of their fates obscures one important point - each and every one of those missions exceeded their design lifetimes. Even Phoenix, which was designed to last only three months, survived nearly five months.

    10. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hmm... the only constant I see there is that the equipment with names that are based on motivational posters are still going.

      Novelty poster publisher Despair, Inc. today announced a surprise entry in to the unmanned space probe arena. A spokesperson for the company commented, "NASA pretty much threw down the gauntlet with all those names."

      Represenatives for the company went on to say that their first probe had already been named. "It's called Apathy. We've already began production." When pressed for details, the company spokesperson continued to note that "...actual construction of the probe has halted as neither the design team nor the construction crew could be bothered to finish it. Operations has decided that if they can't be given a finished probe, well, there's just no reason to even bother thinking about a launch and have scrubbed any additional work on Apathy." The spokesperson went on to proudly announce that Despair had already achieved their first non-launch to date and are eagerly looking forward to their program's next success.

    11. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by mbone · · Score: 1

      The Viking 1 lander was killed by a software error - they had cut staffing to a few people, and they got out of the habit of testing the software before it was uploaded.

    12. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Pathfinder - lander - lost contact in 12 weeks. Sojourner - rover - lost contact in 12 weeks.

      One interesting little bit of trivia about this joint mission, which was only designed to last for 40 days, is that the Sojourner rover depended on the Pathfinder lander, which carried it down, to relay communications to earth. Pathfinder died first, leaving the poor little Sojourner all on its own, but probably still functional.

      In the event of losing contact, the rover was programmed to try to drive back to where it remembered the lander being and circle it, on the assumption a rock or something was blocking the signal. Last year the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter photographed and clearly identified Pathfinder, but Sojourner is small enough they aren't sure if they spotted it or not. It's probably a little black spec barely visible halfway between the lander and where it was when contact was lost, meaning it died shortly afterwards. It's impossible to be sure, however, and one of the team members has proposed the whimsical but fun idea that it got confused about its position and took off in a straight line across the country-side. It could be over a kilometer away by now.

      Go WALL-E...err...I mean Sojourner!

    13. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phoenix - lander - dead, but we're still listening

      There, fixed that for you.

    14. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by Neurowiz · · Score: 1

      One slight correction:

      Viking 1 - orbiter + lander - dead and dead (out of gas, bad software update)
      Viking 2 - orbiter + lander - dead and dead (fuel leak, battery)

      Sources:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_1
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_2

      --
      Neurowiz
    15. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      I think it's more important to note how long they were expected to last, and how long they actually lasted. From 90 days to 5 years is ... Extraordinary. Did the others perform as well?

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    16. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Hmm... the only constant I see there is that the equipment with names that are based on motivational posters are still going.

      The next pair of rovers will be named Maverick and Yes-We-Can. Let's see how they fair. I suspect they will run out of funds.
               

    17. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I didn't mention any failures.

      Phoenix is a lander, oops. Too eager on the ctrl+v.

    18. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I only included things that landed successfully. I included the orbiters for the Viking missions because they had a lander.

    19. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I only included successful missions with landers.

    20. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I only included the successful missions with actual landers.

    21. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I only included the status to let people know the status. Yes, we all know that they've exceeded their expected life spans. I also didn't include dates. It's just a simple damned list of successful Mars landers.

      Spirit, Pathfinder, Opportunity, Sojourner, Phoenix, Viking... most people remember Spirit and Opportunity, and associate all others as "another Mars rover".

    22. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they were swapped...

    23. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      We Martians must consider all vehicles a threat, even the incompetent ones...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    24. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      Over-designed hardware exceeds design lifetime! Film at 11!

      (disclaimer: yes, I am an engineer and I do understand how and why they are "over-designed")

      --
      -
    25. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately Sojourner did not carry rechargeable batteries, so it could only go so far.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    26. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      TOO SOON!

    27. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder when we'll see names that more accurately represent space exploration, such as:

      Almost
      Better
      Cheap
      Maybe

    28. Re:Mars Rovers, Landers, and Orbiters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, it didn't carry rechargeable batteries, but it was able to move at a very slow pace using just the power from its small solar panel. In fact, it did this for several weeks after it's batteries were drained before Pathfinder died.

  13. Mission Accomplished by Java+Commando · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Indeed, Spirit can legitimately unfurl a "Mission Accomplished" banner, now.

    And have no regrets about it.

    1. Re:Mission Accomplished by laejoh · · Score: 0

      Silly, it would drain the battery!

  14. Oh! That's Just Great! by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 3, Funny
    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  15. Time for the Government to step in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And give Spirit a 700 Billion dollar bailout..

  16. The Spirit rover is dying by Malevolent+Tester · · Score: 0

    It is official; NASA now confirms: The Spirit rover is dying

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Mars exploration community when NASA confirmed that the rover's power level has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent. Coming close on the heels of the recent Phoenix Lander failure, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The Spirit is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by a story on Slashdot regarding its power failures.

    You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict the Spirit rover's future. The hand writing is on the wall: the Spirit rover faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for the Spirit rover because the Spirit rover is dying. Things are looking very bad for the Spirit rover. As many of us are already aware, the Spirit rover continues to lose power. Machine oil flows like a river of blood.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    NASA states that there are 89 watt hours of energy. How much energy is required each day? Let's see. There are heaters including one that protects a science instrument, the miniature thermal emission spectrometer, as well as communications equipment. Now NASA has had to switch all these off.

    Due to the troubles of metric/imperial conversion and so on, the Beagle Probe crashed and attention was taken over by the Phoenix Lander. Now the Phoenix Lander is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another rusting hulk.

    All major surveys show that the Spirit rover has steadily declined in power. the Spirit rover is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. The Spirit rover continues to decay. Nothing short of a Martians with batteries could save the Spirit rover from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, the Spirit rover is dead.

    --
    If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
    1. Re:The Spirit rover is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing short of a Martians with batteries could save the Spirit rover from its fate at this point in time.

      They could just do us a favor and wipe off the solar panels for us.

    2. Re:The Spirit rover is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you possibly say 'Spirit Rover' one more time?

  17. Cue GlaDOSs' voice in the thin martian atmosphere by VMaN · · Score: 1, Funny

    This was a triumph
    I'm making a note here: ====HUGE SUCCESS====
    It's hard to overstate my satisfaction

    It's hard to overstate
    My satisfaction.

    Aperture Science;
    We do what we must,
    Because we can.

    For the good of all of us.
    Except the ones who are dead.

    But there's no sense crying
    Over every mistake.
    You just keep on trying
    Till you run out of cake.
    And the science gets done,
    And you make a neat gun
    For the people who are
    Still alive.

    I'm not even angry...
    I'm being so sincere right now -
    Even though you broke my heart,
    And killed me.

    And tore me to pieces.
    And threw every piece into a fire.
    As they burned it hurt because
    I was so happy for you!

    Now, these points of data
    Make a beautiful line.
    And we're out of BETA.
    We're releasing on time!
    So I'm GLaD, I got burned -
    Think of all the things we learned -
    For the people who are
    Still alive.

    (Go ahead and leave me...)
    (I think I'd prefer to stay inside...)
    (Maybe you'll find someone else
    To help you?)
    Maybe Black Mesa?
    That was a joke! HAHA! FAT CHANCE!

    Anyway this cake is great!
    It's so delicious and moist!

    Look at me; still talking
    When there's science to do!
    When I look out there,
    It makes me GLaD I'm not you.

    I've experiments to run.
    There is research to be done,
    On the people who are
    Still alive.
    And believe me I am
    Still alive.
    I'm doing science and I'm
    Still alive.
    I feel fantastic and I'm
    Still alive.
    While you're dying I'll be
    Still alive.
    And when you're dead I will be
    Still alive.

    Still alive.

    Still alive.

  18. Re:Wipers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been discussed to death on Slashdot several times over the years.

  19. 5 years is still pretty good by suso · · Score: 1

    considering that my dishwasher back on Earth only lasted 3. I wouldn't have expected their lander to last for that long.

    1. Re:5 years is still pretty good by daniduclos · · Score: 2, Funny

      considering that my dishwasher back on Earth only lasted 3. I wouldn't have expected their lander to last for that long.

      Your kitchen conditions are worst than the Martian conditions, I'm afraid... :)

    2. Re:5 years is still pretty good by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Well, considering your dishwasher didn't cost hundreds of millions of dollars...

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    3. Re:5 years is still pretty good by machine321 · · Score: 1

      You don't know that, it could be a Pentagon dishwasher.

    4. Re:5 years is still pretty good by suso · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your kitchen conditions are worst than the Martian conditions, I'm afraid... :)

      That might be true. I have a 2 year old.

    5. Re:5 years is still pretty good by suso · · Score: 1

      Actually, its a square... oh nevermind.

    6. Re:5 years is still pretty good by kcbnac · · Score: 1

      ...

      That might be true. I have a 2 year old.

      Hmmm. Not even a Pelican Case would be guaranteed against that.

      http://pelican.com/support/guarantee.php

      "...This guarantee does not cover shark bite, bear attack or damage caused by children under five."

  20. Options by florescent_beige · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. An 89 watt-hour high-speed dash to blow the dust off. By my calculations they should be able to go 6 feet at 4 mph so ok forget that.

    2. Launch a nuclear powered feather dusting support rover. No that's stupid.

    3. Fire a kazillajoule laser at Mars to energize the solar panels. This is actually the least worst idea so far which is depressing.

    4. Spend the remaining energy teaching the rover to do the Hammer Dance with it's eight independently swiveling wheels. If you got to go down, go down doing the Hammer Dance that's what I always say which is maybe why nobody sits with me in the cafeteria.

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    1. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      . An 89 watt-hour high-speed dash to blow the dust off. By my calculations they should be able to go 6 feet at 4 mph so ok forget that.

      2. Launch a nuclear powered feather dusting support rover. No that's stupid.

      3. Fire a kazillajoule laser at Mars to energize the solar panels. This is actually the least worst idea so far which is depressing.

      4. Spend the remaining energy teaching the rover to do the Hammer Dance with it's eight independently swiveling wheels. If you got to go down, go down doing the Hammer Dance that's what I always say which is maybe why nobody sits with me in the cafeteria.

      Idea # 4 would probably generate enough public support to secure an increase in the mars program budget, perhaps enough to launch another rover.

      For that matter, why not do idea # 4, then use the money made to pay for # 2. # 4 may even have the same effect as #1. Or you could just get the Pentagon to develop # 3 by claiming it'll fry terrorists, and then have them lend it to NASA for the weekend (hurry up though, Bush is almost out of office and stupid-anti-terrorism-ideas will soon be starved for cash).

    2. Re:Options by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      4. Spend the remaining energy teaching the rover to do the Hammer Dance with it's eight independently swiveling wheels. If you got to go down, go down doing the Hammer Dance that's what I always say which is maybe why nobody sits with me in the cafeteria.

      Or we could teach it Daisy Bell

    3. Re:Options by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      2. Launch a nuclear powered feather dusting support rover. No that's stupid.

      Actually, the next planned mission WILL be nuclear powered. NASA Mars Science Laboratory

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    4. Re:Options by Sterling+Christensen · · Score: 1

      4. Spend the remaining energy teaching the rover to do the Hammer Dance with it's eight independently swiveling wheels. If you got to go down, go down doing the Hammer Dance that's what I always say which is maybe why nobody sits with me in the cafeteria.

      Or we could teach it Daisy Bell

      Or give it a frisbee and have it dance to Put On Your Sunday Clothes.

    5. Re:Options by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your post advocates a

      (X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

      approach to Rover problems. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from planet to planet before a bad solar system law was passed.)

      (X) It requires too much power
      ( ) It may make situation worse
      ( ) It doesn't solve the problem
      (X) It works here on Earth but not on Mars
      ( ) It will work for two weeks and then it might get stuck
      ( ) It does not account for the climate of Mars
      (X) Marvin the Martian will not put up with it

      Specifically, your plan fails to account for

      ( ) Weight limitations on mission payload
      ( ) Space limitations on mission payload
      ( ) Extreme cold of Mars
      (X) Atmosphere of Mars
      (X) Difference between Mars gravity and Earth gravity
      (X) Materials don't exist yet
      ( ) Survivability of materials on Mars
      (X) Distance between Mars and Earth
      (X) NASA bureaucacy
      (X) Technically illiterate politicians
      (X) Marvin the Martian
      (X) Democrats
      (X) Republicans
      (X) Ralph Nader

      and the following objections may also apply:

      (X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
      ( ) Solution is beyond mission scope
      ( ) Solution solves the wrong problem
      (X) Only delays the inevitable
      ( ) Cost limitations
      ( ) Requires redesign
      ( ) Scientific instruments may have to be excluded
      (X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem

      Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

      ( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
      (X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
      ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:Options by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      4. Spend the remaining energy teaching the rover to do the Hammer Dance with it's eight independently swiveling wheels. If you got to go down, go down doing the Hammer Dance that's what I always say which is maybe why nobody sits with me in the cafeteria.

      I once knew a street walker who said that, and well, let's just say she didn't have a large clientèle.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:Options by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

      That was the best comment thus far. I second #3 by the way, or... 5. Shoot LHC at the solar panels. By the time it reaches Mars it's attenuation should be about that of a light breeze; just enough to clear off the dust from them.

      --
      -SaNo
    8. Re:Options by jafac · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, I had read about the fear of issues with dust settling on the solar cells; I figured they should have used the same mechanism that NASCAR uses to clear the lenses of the car-cams. A clear, celluloid cover over the cells, which can be rolled-up off of a spool on either side of the cells, and a brush along the top of the spool. Every time dust collects on the cells, the spool winds out a new clear celluloid cover, the dusty bit is brushed off, and rolled up. Next time, the motor rolls the opposite direction.

      Oh well, maybe the next rover will have something like this.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    9. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just pondering the patience that the aerospace people here show when responding to the completely uninformed/clueless/crazy posts regarding spaceflight. Compare this to the flaying you will get for showing ignorance of, say, the finer points of installing Ubuntu.

      I will continue to patiently explain the laws of physics, economics, and politics as they apply to space exploration, but I may want to use your form on occasion. Can I?

    10. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 3. Fire a kazillajoule laser at Mars to energize the solar panels. This is actually the least worst idea so far which is depressing.

      Think about it for a second.. you *know* that they're just waiting on Mars for such an opportunity. We fire off that big a laser, and I'm going to get my "I for one, welcome our Benevolent Martian Overlords." t-shirt printed off. In Green.

    11. Re:Options by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

      It is not a stupid idea!

      It's four stupid ideas.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    12. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, the rovers only have SIX wheels, dumbass.

    13. Re:Options by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Anything I post on the internet I will disavow so go ahead. :P

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  21. Re:Wipers by Kjella · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why didn't NASA include a device similar to windshield wipers on the solar panels? It seems that they knew mars was dusty, and it would be a simple thing to add (I'd imagine).

    You'd be wrong. You can find the details in the hundreds of posts on the subject over the last years, in short they figured more scientific equipment would be more valuable.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  22. Re:Wipers by confused+one · · Score: 3, Informative

    This has been covered before... Anyway, here's the deal: 1.) The wiper would add weight and cost. 2.) The wiper would require power. 3.) The wiper would eventually wear out. 4.) The wiper might get stuck mid-"wipe", blocking the solar energy incident on the panels. 5.) The wiper would scratch the surface of the solar panel, reducing the amount of absorbed light. Either 4 or 5 would reduce the amount of power generated.

  23. Well that was the logest 90 days I can remeber by F34nor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    These things had a 90 day life span! Next time I think we should send them in pairs so they can help each other out in a pinch.

  24. Re:Wipers by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    And there are too many factors that would have made wipers impractical especially for what was originally a 90 sol mission.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  25. OMG Mars Global Warming!!! by jsldub · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    We must decrease our carbon footprint on Mars! These devices have started failing from dust storms only recently, since we have been sending robots to Mars.

    So it is obviously our robots that are causing the increased storms!

    end sarcasm...

  26. Just turn off 3G and bluetooth. by rwaldin · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's what I do when my iPhone battery gets low anyway.

  27. Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Danger, Will Robinson!

  28. Interview with K'Breel: Next Triumph Awaits by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny

    The most Illustrious Council of Elders has issued an update following yesterday's Planetary Day of Celebration of Victory over the Northern Invader. K'breel, Speaker for the Council, spake thus:

    Rejoice! One mechanical nightmare from the evil blue planet has fallen silent. The other robotic terror stirs, but only because it in quivers in fear, for we have darkened the skies with the ashes of its bretheren. We shall starve the invaders of light -- there shall be no mercy for them, as the day shall soon come when our planet itself shall rise to entomb them in a cloak of red dust! On the Tracks of the Founders, this we swear!

    When a newly-hired journalism intern implied a correlation between the invaders' movements and seasonal weather patterns, and pointed out that that the current sandstorm had begun to abate, and that the same winds that were promised to bury invaders in dust could also, on occasion, blow accumulated dust off the invaders, K'Breel, in a rare display of compassion, responded by offering him a piece of jerky made from the dried gelsacs of a recently-retired member of the Press Corps.

  29. Martian Hoopties by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I got modded "troll" once for calling them that once, but the fact is they were designed for six month's use. They've been rolling around Mars for five years now. That's like an automobile with a ten year warrantee still running after fifty years without maintenance - in other words, a hooptie. It's not a slam, in this case it's a compliment.

    I wish the guys who engineered the rovers would engineer cars. The rovers are simply amazing.

    1. Re:Martian Hoopties by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I wish the guys who engineered the rovers would engineer cars.

      They did that once. And yes, the results were pretty amazing. Of course the car industry is as much about building vehicles for transportation as the porn industry is about promoting reproduction.

  30. Next time.... by Patchw0rk+F0g · · Score: 1

    Note to self: one cosmic feather-duster...

    --
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
  31. Anthropomorphizing again by jimhill · · Score: 1

    It's a funny thing...these little machines have done the job they were designed and built to do, done it well, and while I know they're expensive versions of RC cars, there's a part of me that will be sad when they stop working.

    --
    Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
    1. Re:Anthropomorphizing again by LMacG · · Score: 1

      Agreed. This is sadder than when Floyd died, but then again, I never actually played Planetfall.

      --
      Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
  32. Putting it in perspective. by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Planetary Society blog has a composite picture of Spirit from two years ago and today which shows starkly just how much dust has accumulated.

    1. Re:Putting it in perspective. by InsaneMosquito · · Score: 1

      I wish I had a mod point for you. This picture is very helpful in seeing what two years of dust will do to a rover.

  33. Hope? by Aniyn · · Score: 1

    Maybe, just maybe, if we all wish hard enough the wind will blow some of the dust off the panels and the rovers can go on making the people who developed them look brilliant and foolish all at the same time.

  34. obligatory diealready tag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's about time, aint it?

  35. Different Hemispheres by iamlucky13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's fall in the northern hemisphere of Mars where Phoenix is located, so it dying was entirely expected, and although it lasted longer than its mission, they were hoping to get a few more weeks out of it. Landing was just a month before the summer solstice, so it had 30 days of conditions that started good and improved, then 130 days of declining conditions. Since it's in the arctic circle, it had complete daylight until a month or two ago, when the sun started setting again.

    Spirit and Opportunity, however, are in the southern hemisphere, and it's early spring. Between the dust on Spirit's solar panels and being about 12 degrees further from the equator than Opportunity, things got a little worrisome for Spirit over the winter, but her minimum power levels at that time were over twice the 89 Watt-hours quoted in the article.

    Low power is slightly less of a concern now than it was then, because the surface temperature should be higher and so electronics should need less heating, but that huge drop in power is probably more than enough to make up the difference. The other potential positive factor is Spirit's batteries had a decent level of charge when the storm started, so if the storm dissipates quickly they'll probably be in the clear. Trying to maintain 89 W-hr for several months, however, could very easily be fatal, so they're trying to use an absolute minimum of power to keep her out of fault mode.

    Spirit actually hadn't moved an inch for several months to save power until a week or two ago. Her team had parked her on a sloped rock face at about a 30 degree angle to square her solar panels to the noon sun over the winter, and because of relatively clear skies, she was even able to take a high resolution panorama (link is to an index, not directly to the giant 42 MB image) and do some stationary science. As the sun angle increased, they had just started inching back towards a 20 degree tilt to follow it when the dust storm hit. There's a rather dramatic picture of what that 30 degree tilt looks like on the program site.

    As of the last report I've seen, the atmosphere is 69% opaque due to suspended dust (although I believe more than 31% of the sunlight diffuses through indirectly), and the dust coating on Spirit's solar panels is only letting through 32% of of the sunlight that actually reaches them. In the past they'd had good luck with winds cleaning the panels off, but that hasn't happened in a while. The team is hoping that the same seasonal weather that brings on these dust storms will generate a few lucky dust devils.

    Opportunity, on the other side of the planet meanwhile, has been getting 500-600 Watt-hours and averaging about 50 meters per day of progress towards the huge crater Endeavor, which is 12 km away.

    And what nutjob modded the parent as a troll? Sheesh! And to think we probably let that person vote, too.

    1. Re:Different Hemispheres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      she was even able to take a high resolution panorama [nasa.gov]

      Looking at that picture I am awestruck...

      ...by how much it looks like New Mexico.

    2. Re:Different Hemispheres by G00F · · Score: 1

      Nice post, but what I thought was most interesting, in the big picture you linked to, some of those rocks look sedimentary . . . which usually requires the use of water in its formation.

      I don't follow space news all that close, but I would have thought that would have ben a topic at some point.

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    3. Re:Different Hemispheres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The caption says they've classified the rocks as sandstone, so yes they're mostly sedimentary. Columbia Hills, I believe are volcanic, but the surrounding plains are fresher sediments. There's also a few loose volcanic rocks laying about that were probably ejected from impact craters over the years. You can spot them by their porous appearance.

      Sedimentary rocks can form from wind or water deposited sediments. However, one of the key findings of Spirit has been salt and phosphorous deposits in the soil that suggest that the area was wet in the distant past. Indeed, the reason for choosing Gusev Crater for Spirit to land in was because it appears from orbit like an ancient crater-lakebed filled with sediment.

      ~OP (not logged in)

  36. Spirit hasn't been moving... by mbone · · Score: 1

    Spirit has not been moving much recently - I believe that since 2007 it has only gone about 1 or 2 meters. It's not just the power, it's also the crippled wheel.

    What the spacecraft needs is a few dust-devils to blow the dust off. The original mission plan assumed that both rovers would suffer power failures after a few months due to dust, and people were pleasantly surprised to have the dust cleared off by the dust-devils. Why this is no longer working is unclear, at least to me - the climate may be changing, or maybe the spacecraft has acquired a static electricity charge.

  37. Clearing off the solar arrays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't they just get the gaffer to wipe it off?

    Isn't that what they usually do when making movies.

  38. Re:Wipers by compro01 · · Score: 1

    Not to mention 6.) It likely wouldn't be fantastically effective given the "super static cling" effect of the dust they're dealing with.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  39. Karma to burn. by NoisySplatter · · Score: 1

    ZOMG! There are footprints in the upper left corner!

    --
    In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
  40. Election results suicides by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Funny

    Spirit got the election results and is committing suicide. Spirit was a big Palin fan.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Election results suicides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      i thought spirit was one of palins kids!

  41. Not to be pedantic but... by mykepredko · · Score: 5, Informative

    The two rovers were not designed to work for 90 days.

    They were guaranteed to work for 90 days.

    The various components were designed to work no matter what they experienced for 90 days on the Martian surface.

    I suspect that they were designed for the worst possible set of circumstances for 90 days which has allowed them to operate for the much longer time in the actual environment which is more benign than the worst case scenario.

    Regardless of the semantics of the 90 days, the time the two robots have been operating is still an amazing achievement and everybody involved should be very proud.

    myke

    1. Re:Not to be pedantic but... by iamlucky13 · · Score: 4, Informative

      They were indeed designed to work for almost the worst conditions expected for 90 days, based on what prior landers saw. If you read Dr. Steven Squyre's book Roving Mars (which I highly recommend for any space nerd, even though he wrote it several years too early), he describes at several points how worried they were that dust accumulation was going to kill these things before 90 days were up.

      After talking about wipers, blowers, vibrators, etc. they concluded the best course of action was to just size the panels to produce the minimum required amount of electricity for operations after 90 days of worst-case dust accumulation. An added bonus of this approach was plenty of power to play around with early in the mission (and part of why they've done so well now). Accomplishing this ended up being a huge problem, however, and I think the power team spent weeks trying to figure out a geometery that would provide the needed amount of surface area, but not get in the way of all the other parts while folding down small enough to fit inside the tetrahedral lander platform. They finally got a break when they figured out a set of winglet-like tabs that unfolded from the back of an already folded section of panel.

      The result didn't just solve the problem, it looked freaking awesome. Earlier renders of the rovers had them being nearly square or hexagon shaped, as opposed to the swept-back fighter wing look they have as built. Heck, Steve Jobs is probably even jealous of how sexy the MER's look, and they aren't even trying.

    2. Re:Not to be pedantic but... by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      They weren't guaranteed to do squat. Part of the reason for having two rovers was a hedge against failure. The MER team basically decided that it was cheaper to send two and hope one survived than to design out the risk on one rover.

      Two rovers let them cover more ground, see more stuff, and still have a mission if one rover failed. Notice that while Spirit is in trouble, Opportunity is still operating.

    3. Re:Not to be pedantic but... by rossdee · · Score: 2, Funny

      "They were guaranteed to work for 90 days."

      And if they had failed within that time, NASA could have made a warranty claim, but to do so they would have had to return the unit to the manufacturer.

  42. Suggestion for next rover by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    Suggestion for next rover, a $5 broom attachment.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  43. Pedantic griping on the units by compact_support · · Score: 4, Insightful

    During a day, solar panels don't produce any watts of energy. Watts are a compound unit, specifically joules per second. Joules are a measurement of energy, and what would be produced in a a time period. Watts represent the instantaneous rate of power generation.

    1. Re:Pedantic griping on the units by compro01 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Which is why they are using Watt-hours, which are a unit of energy equal to 3600 joules (1 Joule=1 Watt-second).

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  44. patent, patent, who's got the patent? by DuctTape · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they should have included a 'solar cell wipper assembly' (Patent Pending) to wipe the dust off???

    No, there's probably already a patent on it, and then you'd have hoards of lawyers descending upon Marshall, TX, to stop the rover from using it, so it'd die anyway.

    ... unless the Martians have their own patent docket... oh no, do you suppose the rovers are now violating any Martian patents??!? So they're dead either way.

    DT

    --
    Is this thing on? Hello?
    1. Re:patent, patent, who's got the patent? by speroni · · Score: 1

      Sorry off topic... but "Free Pittsburgh"?

      I just moved there, I dont seem to have any more limitations on my rights than usual.

      --
      Eschew Obfuscation
    2. Re:patent, patent, who's got the patent? by DuctTape · · Score: 1

      Total red herring. Felt left out since I couldn't think of a snappy saying to put in my sig line, so I put in something totally ridiculous. You're the first person that's ever asked after all these years. I've actually been there once or twice. Sorry if I raised an alarm.

      DT

      --
      Is this thing on? Hello?
    3. Re:patent, patent, who's got the patent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry off topic... but "Free Pittsburgh"? I just moved there, I dont seem to have any more limitations on my rights than usual.

      They tried selling it a while back, but no-one wanted to buy it. Now they're offering it for nothing to anyone who'll give it a good home.

      Personally I'd snap it up, but I just don't have enough spare room in my house.

    4. Re:patent, patent, who's got the patent? by speroni · · Score: 1

      Its a fun place, look me up if you happen by again. I'll buy you a beer.

      --
      Eschew Obfuscation
  45. Photoshopped by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I can tell by the pixels.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  46. The wittle wascal has spiwit! by spun · · Score: 2, Funny

    Centurion: Has what sir?
    Pilate: Spiwit!
    Centurion: Yes, he did sir.
    Pilate: No, no. Spiwit, siw. Um, bwavado. A touch of dewwing-do.
    Centurion: Oh. Ahh, about eleven, sir.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  47. Pedantic griping on your reading comprehension by danzona · · Score: 1

    TFS refers to watt hours

    Watt = joule / sec
    Watt hours = Watts * hours, not Watts / hour
    1 watt hour = 3600 joules

    1. Re:Pedantic griping on your reading comprehension by compact_support · · Score: 1

      TFS refers to watt hours

      Missed that all important "hours" when I read TFS. Oops.

  48. Re:Cue GlaDOSs' voice in the thin martian atmosphe by martinw89 · · Score: 1

    Portal was simultaneously awesome and hilarious. But copy-pasting the credits song in a post with "martian" in the title is lame.

  49. Or a nuclear power source by MarcQuadra · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or they could have thrown the power budget out the window and used a nuclear-decay power source, like a lot of satellites do.

    Now that -power availability- seems to be the biggest issue with these landers, maybe we can build one with a power source that provides years of solid performance instead of solar panels.

    The devices wouldn't even be radioactive by the Mars gets crowded anyway.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    1. Re:Or a nuclear power source by david.given · · Score: 1

      Or they could have thrown the power budget out the window and used a nuclear-decay power source, like a lot of satellites do.

      You might be interested to know that Spirit and Opportunity do have radioactive heaters --- eight each. These provide a certain amount of background heat.

      However, the problem with these is that because they can't be turned off, you run into problems with the electronics getting too hot! So you always need to use undersized radioactive heaters and supplement them with electric heating.

      Of course, as you say, using a proper RTG and big electric heaters would have dealt with the problem once and for all. Unfortunately it would also most likely have doubled the mass of the vehicles, along with the cost.

  50. Re:Cue GlaDOSs' voice in the thin martian atmosphe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Mod this guy down for unnecessary, offtopic, and way overused joke. I'm AC because I'm scared of the mods.

  51. Bring it back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there ever was a monument to the capabilities of the human mind and spirit, these two rovers qualify. Could you imagine taking your grandkids to the Smithsonian and saying, "I remember when these worked so well they outperformed all expectations. Just like Lindberghs plane, only better.

    There is the small problem of getting them back, as far as I know FedEx is a few years off from a space port and a Mars zip code.

  52. Re:Options "3. Fire a kazillajoule laser at Mars" by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Woulda been easier to have just sent up an Energizer Bunny... "It keeps GOING. And GOING. And GOING..."

    And, it's lightweight. It might even serve as a deterrent to any Martians having designs of attacking the Earth.

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  53. The Next Rover. by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Oh well, maybe the next rover will have something like this.

    The next rover is going to have a nuclear battery. No more sissy photovoltaics. No more patient waiting for the feeble wind to blow in just the right direction. Just RAW, NUCLEAR POWER.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  54. Mars Roomba by tillerman35 · · Score: 1

    They need to make a Roomba that can vacuum the dust off the solar panels. Or put a whisk on a articulated arm or something. Amazing lifespan these things, but imagine if they had just been able to clear their own dust off instead of hoping for a windstorm to blow them clean.

  55. Mars Science Laboratory by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    NASA's next rover, the Mars Science Laboratory, is going to use an RTG capable of generating 2.5 kilowatt-hours a day, which is around four times what the current rovers can produce on a good day.

    Of course the MSL is about twice as long and more than five times as heavy as Spirit and Opportunity, and more than twice as heavy as Phoenix. So it's much more expensive not just to build but to get to Mars, and more complicated to land since air-bags won't work. Weight is the main reason the Spirit is stuck with solar cells.

    The MSL is a much more ambitious project. Which is great, because you're absolutely right nuclear power is way better than solar, no problems with dust or night time or winter. The wikipedia article says the new RTG should last at least 14 years. If the rest of the rover is built as well as the current ones, we could have the MSL running around Mars for a long, long time. Oh, and since it's going to need a snappier name, I suggest "Optimus" (and if they decide to send two, of course "Prime").

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  56. Re:Oh Noes [dusty panels] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    How about if they equip the panels with fans?

    The atmosphere is so thin that blowing compressed air would probably be better. The choice would probably be between pre-packed air or a compressor motor with a buffer. Pre-packed air may be a simpler and lighter design, but provide less air blasts. It seems about 2 blasts per Earth year was sufficient for the rovers (as whirlwinds on Mars) based on panel photos over time. Thus, if a mission could last up to 8 years, then pre-pack 16 blasts' worth.

  57. Re:Wipers by mikael · · Score: 1

    Anything mechanical would add weight, jam or burn out, consume more power, scratch the glass on the solar panels, or make the dust stick to the glass even more. The risks made were worse than the potential gains.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  58. Well, ... by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1

    All I have to say is that I am now dis-Spirit-ed. I hope you Martian dust storms are happy. (/Sulks)

    --
    .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
  59. Drug rehabilitation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drug rehabilitation (often drug rehab or just rehab) is an umbrella term for the processes of medical and/or psychotherapeutic treatment, for dependency on psychoactive substances such as alcohol, prescription drugs, and so-called street drugs such as cocaine, heroin or amphetamines.
    =================
    Kyle
    http://www.legalx.net

  60. Re:Wipers by NNKK · · Score: 1

    That timeline was based on the idea that the panels would be unusable due to dust buildup. Circular reasoning, anyone?

    NASA put people on the moon with a tin can and a few thousand transistors. Anyone who thinks the engineers couldn't have come up with a solution to remove dust from solar panels on Mars that would be practical and cost-effective over a multi-year mission timeline is insane.

    The lack of a cleaning mechanism doesn't reflect the unique challenges of the Martian environment, it reflects only the horrific mismanagement of the space program since Apollo.

  61. Re:Wipers by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    It's not circular reasoning; it's called scope. Both rovers had 90 sol mission and objectives that lasted that long. So the rovers were designed to last at least 90 sols under the worst conditions. When they looked at this problem originally (from what they learned from other Mars missions), they had 2 choices: Specifically design something to remove the dust or design the rover so that it would last at least 90 sols without cleaning. They choose the later due to the weight/space/power limitations. Also adding a dust removal system may have meant the loss of scientific equipment. I'm sure if they were designing for a 5 year mission, the design parameters and choices would have been different. NASA has long know that the dust would mean the death of the rovers; they designed to rovers so that the death would be beyond 90 sols. Lasting 5 years has been a huge bonus.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.